From Elon Musk to Joseph Smith: a material simulation hypothesis
Giulio Prisco

He sort of lost me at the notion of “trans-Plankian”. Granted, a lot of things in the standard model approach the metaphysical in their nature, but the second you raise the notion of “trans-Plankian” you’ve basically weighed anchor and set sail into a sea of pure metaphysics. As for hidden variables, at least to some degree that notion doesn’t match experimental evidence. Results from Irish physicist John Steward Bell’s experiments would be very difficult to reconcile under this model.

It seems to me there are a lot of other possibilities that, while not as exotic as “trans-Plankian”, or even inter-universe barrier ignoring external influences, might still yield something similar. Lately I’ve had a lot of questions about the way Higgs fields may interact with particles that are not, and in the past have have never had any previous entanglement relationships with particles we are able to perceive because they share no entanglement relationships with us beyond the superluminal expansion period of the universe associated with the tiny moment following the big bang (or perhaps one of the many possible small bangs currently being debated as another possible origin for the universe). Such particles would be influenced by the Higgs field, and that interaction — without sharing any direct entanglement with us as observers — might go a long way toward explaining what dark matter and energy are.

All of this may also tie into the holographic principle, which is a widely accepted concept in both the standard model of quantum physics as well as string theory, and could even be described as a different state of matter that hasn’t been more than speculated at because it raises certain challenges to our ability to make any observations. In the absence of entanglement, can we even directly observe said matter? Can such matter occupy the same space as other matter we are capable of observing?

The degree of gravitational influence of such matter, or even the physical properties of such matter, has never been calculated or defined, nor do we even have a framework to tell if other interactions with the Higgs field and particles of this type that we cannot directly observe would result in the same gravitational influences at the macro level as the matter we share entanglement with that we can actually observe. And this says nothing about the possibility that there may be multiple types of Higgs particles existing at more than just the one candidate energy level the LHC managed to detect evidence of.

The physical universe always tends to be vastly more complex in practice than the somewhat more simple rules it is defined by intuitively suggest. It’s why the study of entanglement in a laboratory, in spite of the expense, tends to be more a study of conceptual possibility than a study of entanglement’s actual expression in the observable world. In the observable world, the complexity would be hopelessly unfathomable. Even a highly advanced quantum computer would barely be able to suggest a child’s play scratch in the paint of the vast complexity of entanglements in the real universe. But I have seen no rules anywhere that suggest there could not be entire realms sharing entanglement that share no commonality with our own. And the holographic principle under most theories and models has a lot more room for information within the space defined by our universe than even the gravitational models that tell us we are missing 96% of the mass, and 70% of the energy it would take to explain the structure of the universe that astronomers can actually see.

And all of this without even having to resort to brane theory.

I find it interesting that all that would be needed to establish entanglement, and therefore an ability to perceive such particles as I have described, would be to somehow pierce the void or veil that defines our lack of entanglement and make an actual observation. Granted, that ability to observe may require some help to allow us to perceive a form of matter we lack a natural ability to perceive because it is in a form we have never interacted with before in our current form. So entanglement wouldn’t necessarily guarantee awareness. But the mere act of a successful observation could, with that understanding and perception, completely alter our understanding of the universe and the very nature of our own existence. Observation. Literally, the twinkle of an eye. And who’s to say the ability to make an observation has to come from us? What if the Copenhagen interpretation was applied to a being that was already entangled with states of matter that we have no current access to?

I guess the point I am making is that in spite of how well developed theories of matter and energy like the standard model of quantum physics seem to be, and no matter how successful their predictions are, the expression of the principles on which they are based when applied to the observable universe currently accessible to us is so far beyond our capacity that there is plenty of room for what science would consider exotic expressions. There’s no need to depart from the known framework when doing so potentially contradicts experimental evidence we already have.

Oh, and I take issue with the whole notion of existing in alternate dimensions. The very definition of what a dimension even is makes it impossible for anything to exist unless it has an expression in all dimensions. It would be like saying I only have a first name when I am in the United States, but in other parts of the world I don’t have a first name. Ludicrous. A dimension is nothing more than a way of looking at one or more properties of existence in isolation. Nothing more. It’s purely semantic. Existence itself is boolean, and if you exist, by definition you must meet all of the criteria to do so, which includes exhibiting all the properties of existence that we just happen to call dimensions. Only in math can you give any life to a subset of the known dimensions in isolation. Does length exist without height? Does depth have any meaningful definition in the absence of time? No, no, and to any relevant extension of those questions, also no. It’s all contained within the independent sphere we call existence.